Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

ROMNEY ANTI-PALIN
Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th."

Romney has kept a low profile nationally since being denied the vice presidential nomination. He is currently traveling for the National Republican Congressional Committee in support of some House members, and has attended events for a handful of other House members who have sought his support, but he has traveled little for the McCain-Palin ticket. "He said the only time he'd travel for us is if we assured him that national cameras would be there," says a McCain campaign communications aide. "He's traveled to Nevada and a couple other states for us. That's about it."

Should McCain-Palin not win next week, Romney is expected to mount another presidential run, though it isn't clear that he has handled himself particularly well since losing the nomination. He failed to support or espouse conservative positions on the economic bailout bill in an effective or meaningful way, and he has turned down opportunities to endorse and work for conservative candidates in House or Senate seats unless they were assured of winning.

The most glaring oversight was Romney's refusal to do a phone recording for Massachusetts Republican Jeff Beatty, who is challenging Sen. John Kerry. "Mitt supposedly cares about Massachusetts, but won't even return phone calls asking for help," says a conservative working for Beatty in Boston. "It's a tough race, but the least he could do is help. He's showing his true colors."

Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a "diva" and was going off message intentionally. The former and current Romney supporters further are pushing Romney supporters for key Republican jobs, including head of the Republican National Committee.

That's the interesting conversation (or bitchfest) that the Republican Party and their supporters 'round these parts will have to endure.

In 2004, the Democrats were soundly routed and decided to completely overhaul their message, their electoral approach, and were aided by two electric personalities that defied history and ignited the enthusiasm of the entire country.

The Republicans are destined for an even greater thrashing, but don't seem to be on the same course to re-mulling things over. Instead, they are eating their own and casting out "disloyal" members of the party, reducing its core even further to the bobble-headed fanatics who will yeild an even greater monopoly on the party in 2012. I suspect Obama will easily win reelection over this embarrassing, erratic, and progressively retarded party, to which conservatives can only hope it will reconsider its approach and begin prying its power back from the nutjobs who currently run it.

I voted against Ronald Reagan twice because I judged him to not be smart enough to be president. I changed my opinion on his ability to be president (he was a good one) but I never changed my opinion about his intelligence.

I considered W to be the new Rondald Reagan. Dumb as a rock, but could connect with people. Surround him with experienced grown-ups and, bingo, you have a successful presidency.

I've learned my lesson. Reagan was a once in the history of the US phenomenon. We can't afford any more dumbasses in the oval office.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Nice. For eight years the Republican president ran with a friendly and ineffectual Congress hoping to secure the unitary executive through foreign policy, signing statements, executive orders, and manipulation, and now they are the defenders of the checks and balances set up in our Constitution.

The funniest thing about this situation is that McCain sold his soul to win the nomination in a year where he would have won the nomination with just the moderates and independents voting in open primaries. So, not only did he not inspire the base because of his recent "coming to Jesus" but to the independents his move right alienated them, pushing them to Obama.

And then, to further **** his world up, he's being cast as the blameworthy figure, rather than the incumbent president who has being nothing other than a cluster**** over the last 8 years.

If he hadn't run such a disgraceful campaign, I'd actually feel sorry for him, but rather than doing what he's done his whole career, he turned away from it when it was most beneficial to him not to do so.

__________________
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln

I voted against Ronald Reagan twice because I judged him to not be smart enough to be president. I changed my opinion on his ability to be president (he was a good one) but I never changed my opinion about his intelligence.

I considered W to be the new Rondald Reagan. Dumb as a rock, but could connect with people. Surround him with experienced grown-ups and, bingo, you have a successful presidency.

I've learned my lesson. Reagan was a once in the history of the US phenomenon. We can't afford any more dumbasses in the oval office.

I've never understood what exactly people see in Reagan. What made him a good President? I'm not saying he wasn't, but when looking at things like Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, ballooning deficit, trickle down economics, disregard for the HIV epidemic and homeless epidemic.

Maybe I'm not seeing the good. Was it the inevitable outcome of the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall? What was it that made him a good preisident while looking at some of the major mistakes he made?

Nice. For eight years the Republican president ran with a friendly and ineffectual Congress hoping to secure the unitary executive through foreign policy, signing statements, executive orders, and manipulation, and now they are the defenders of the checks and balances set up in our Constitution.

Indeed.

This is a huge reason why I want to see the Republicans lose. The Democrats are too spineless to stop such practices as signing statements and abuse of the executive order - or maybe they just are willing to live with it knowing what they can do with such precedent once in power...

The Republicans, on the other hand, will hypocritically fight tooth and nail to stop it once the Democrat is weilding such power.

I've never understood what exactly people see in Reagan. What made him a good President? I'm not saying he wasn't, but when looking at things like Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, ballooning deficit, trickle down economics, disregard for the HIV epidemic and homeless epidemic.

Maybe I'm not seeing the good. Was it the inevitable outcome of the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall? What was it that made him a good preisident while looking at some of the major mistakes he made?

Most people acknowledge that he made you feel proud to be an American. He came right off the heels of Carter, who didn't have much support. When Reagan had his inaugural address, the hostages were released. It was like a big sigh of relief. Then he was shot and lived. The Challenger exploded, and he was there, helping the country deal with the shock. The USSR collapsed, and he was there. A lot of people appreciate his nomination of the first female to the Supreme Court.

Others like his economic policies, although there is strong opposition in that regard, as well.

I've never understood what exactly people see in Reagan. What made him a good President? I'm not saying he wasn't, but when looking at things like Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, ballooning deficit, trickle down economics, disregard for the HIV epidemic and homeless epidemic.

Maybe I'm not seeing the good. Was it the inevitable outcome of the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall? What was it that made him a good preisident while looking at some of the major mistakes he made?

You have to understand the TV culture of the 80's to fully appreciate the Reagan presidency. That was when television was peaking in influence. The fact is, the man looked great on TV and could deliver a speech. Regardless of what crazy stuff was going on in the world, Reagan could look into that camera and deliver a shot of confidence to the American people. People will love Obama for the same reasons, regardless of what he does otherwise. So long as the president can look into the camera and convince us that everything is alright, and look good doing it, it can turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.

This is a huge reason why I want to see the Republicans lose. The Democrats are too spineless to stop such practices as signing statements and abuse of the executive order - or maybe they just are willing to live with it knowing what they can do with such precedent once in power...

The Republicans, on the other hand, will hypocritically fight tooth and nail to stop it once the Democrat is weilding such power.

A number of people feel that the Congress has become a "broken branch" recently. I think the Bush administration seized on this broken branch opportunity in the war on terror to exercise as much power as the Supreme Court would allow them.

We are finally seeing the end of the slickest, most power-hungry executive this nation has seen. It will be extremely fascinating to see where Obama (or McCain) takes the executive.

If Palin is the front-runner for Republicans in 2012, I think that absolutely says so much about our celebrity-focused culture, blending into the sacred political sphere. Oh, well, she's familiar - she should be president!

I've never understood what exactly people see in Reagan. What made him a good President? I'm not saying he wasn't, but when looking at things like Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, ballooning deficit, trickle down economics, disregard for the HIV epidemic and homeless epidemic.

Maybe I'm not seeing the good. Was it the inevitable outcome of the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall? What was it that made him a good preisident while looking at some of the major mistakes he made?

The ability of the right wing to control the political narrative while the Democrats treated the term liberal like a pejorative certainly helped.

His presidency was like a PR campaign for Monsanto. **** ten things up, run a couple of 30 second ad spots talking about the two schillings you gave to charity, and reap the rewards (while your farmers can't reap shit because of the terminator gene in your seeds).

__________________
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln

If Palin is the front-runner for Republicans in 2012, I think that absolutely says so much about our celebrity-focused culture, blending into the sacred political sphere. Oh, well, she's familiar - she should be president!

I think that there will be a faction of Palin-ites who will be in so much denial of reality that they'll give it a shot. And there are enough Republicans out there who are well practiced at denying reality, that she could end up a front-runner. But only if McCain manages to make it close. If the McCain camp loses by an electoral landslide, the stink of loss on her will be too much to overcome. She'd have to break a too well constructed cultural caricature that will be set like carbonite in the minds of the American people.

Win or lose, though, the combination of the Palin pick and the entire Barack Obama phenomenon is going to cause a great evolution in the Republican party. Between the two of them, they've blown open doors of opportunity and ambition that could lead to the rebirth of the Republican party. I think we're going to see a fractured party for a long time, and a civil war that will effectively be The Establishment Republican vs. New Era Conservatives. It's likely that the Establishment Republicans will win out in 2012, and we see something similar to a race between Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin (or insert Fred Thompson, or Huckleberry, or any other establishment Republican who don't understand conservative economics and are just hoping to be the pretty head on top of the establishment machine). After the establishment Republicans lose again in another electoral landslide, I predict that there will be enough Internet-mobilized New Era Conservatives who actually understand conservative economics ready to make a difference for the 2016 election -- where they're going to face off with a very well positioned Hillary Clinton. (I have a hunch that Obama might make her the seceratary of state - a move that has the potential to make her invincible in 2016).